The Dark Knight Rises Anticipation Station

Anybody know anything about whether 2D is likely to be available in IMAX, or whether IMAX theaters will be showing 3D?

If the movie was shot for IMAX, I want to see it that way, but I don’t want to have to deal with those glasses for pointless, studio-imposed, post-converted 3D. I’d rather see the bright, crisp 2D IMAX image originally filmed. It would be a real shame to shoot it that way and never let the public see it.

 

Why the "potato hate"? We're just trying to get to the roots of the issues! (Though, admittedly, eye understand your aversion to the discussions that stem from posts about potatoes.)

 

@Captrek what exactly are you asking? Christopher Nolan I believe has stated that "The Dark Knight Rises" will not be in 3D (I think he has stated a few times that he doesn't believe in it). I'm assuming the Imax will be shown in 2D.

 

Do you think the movie is going to end with either Bruce continuing to be Batman for the rest of his life, letting it go of Batman for good after making peace with his demons, or dying in a blaze of glory? Because I heard this movie is going to be a definitive conclusion to at least Nolan's version of the Batman story.

 

John Blake will probably make Bruce rethink the whole loner angle. Probably setting up for Dick/Robin.

Ofcourse it won't be in Nolan's movie.

He will eventually gain Catwoman as an ally

He's got Gordon

He's got Alfred.

 

My mistake. I thought I remembered reading that it was being converted to 3D in post-production. Upon double-checking, I find that I remembered incorrectly. The source was discussing the next Star Trek film, not TDKR.

 

^ Plenty of time for WB to shove that into the movie!

 

I believe Nolan has Final Cut, and thus also control over the movie being 3D or 2D.

 

I'm thinking it will the first option. It seems to me that the whole thing has been one giant origin story that will end with Bruce fully accepting the role of Batman, and his role as Gotham's symbol for what is right.

 

It has always seemed somewhat established in the comics Bruce was into the game for good, until crime was gone in Gotham beyond the petty stuff which is obviously impossible n a city of millions. So the movie will have to end with either Bruce continuing his job as Batman or in some manner rendered in-capable of continuing his duty. Since the movies have not dealt with Robin, who would be groomed for taking on the Batman role, it's likely to me the movie will either end with Batman dying or continuing on in his job.

 

A lot of people have speculated that it will follow Knightfall's plot with Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the Jean-Paul Valley role. In the comics, Wayne resumes Batman duties after his paralysis is magically reversed and Valley proves to be unstable.

With magic being in short supply in the Nolanverse, any possibility that this ends with Bruce passing the cowl for good, à la Batman Beyond? JGL happens to bear a striking resemblance to Terry McGinnis.

 

There was a rumor early on that the studio required Nolan to either do 3D or have Dark Knight somewhere in the title.

 

I really do not understand these fan theories that involve Bruce dying. This trilogy is all about Bruce Wayne's journey to become Batman and more important accept being Batman. In the first film it was all about Bruce's tragic beginnings and his training. He was still naive enough to think he could step away from being Batman. The second movie was about the consequences of being Batman. Rachel's death I think changed things for Bruce. She was a casualty of war. The title of the movie is "The Dark Knight Rises" not "The Dark Knight Falls". I know the tag line has been end of a legend but that could honestly just be about the "legendary trilogy". It makes no sense to me at all to kill off Batman. He is the main character in the film. Thematically it makes no sense for a Nolan film either. John Blake is perhaps the reason why this theory has been triggered in the first place. He is a conundrum. I do not believe though he is meant to be a replacement or successor for Batman. I guess I might in the minority here but I just don't think Nolan would kill Bruce for any reason.

 

Yup. That would be one hell of a downer movie. Regardless of Nolan's power over WB now, WB head honchos would never go for it.

 

JGL is too old to portray the teenaged Terry McGinnis.

 

McGinnis doesn't have to be a teenager.

 

I just rewatched the trailer, and I don't think anymore that this will deal with the death of Bruce and a new Batman as some have speculated.

Looking at some of the lines from the trailer, and some of the hints we've recieved sofar, I think that Bruce has lost his identity, since Batman has not been needed for a while now that Gotham is at a sort of peace. His company is appereantly not doing well (this is from rumors). And I personally feel that when Alfred says he can no longer protect Bruce, he means he can't protect him from himself anymore.

I feel that the 'Rises' part of the trailer will be about Bruce coming to some sort of closure to who he really is, and what it means to be the Batman. He became Batman to fight evil, to become something more then a man. And although he took the hood and cape and fought crime, during the first two movies we've seen him as much as a man and as a figure that fights crime. During TDK he was even hopefull that he could stop being Batman and have a life with Rachel, which was taken from him (both by Rachel choosing Harvey and Joker killing Rachel). Perhaps at that moment he chose to become the figure more then the man, but not because he wanted to; because he had nothing else left.
Now, after 7-8 years of peace in Gotham, the Batman is no longer needed (again, this is pure speculation on my part) and Bruce feels he has nothing anymore.
Now, with the peace in Gotham over, Batman is needed more then ever, and 'rises'. Because of one little line by Selena and the little dialogue between the two men over Gordon being dumped by the mayor, I feel that Gotham is on the verge of becoming what it once was, a decadent city run by the rich where the poor are left to rot, a city where no one has learned the lessons from the past. This might even give reason to the Legaue of Shadows and Ra's Al-Ghul rumors, that they are returning to finish the job they started in the first movie.

Again, all speculation, from the rumors sofar and the bits from the trailer.

 

Sure he does! That's his entire gimmick!

That's like saying that Batman doesn't have to dress like a bat, he could dress like a Ostrich.

 

He also has to be named Terry McGinnis, which John Blake is not.

 

I for one hope that The Dark Knight Rises means something more than The Dark Knight Puts on the Batsuit and Fights the Villain. We've seen that rise before. For example, every Batman work ever created. If the film is to justify the title, the Dark Knight must "rise" in a sense we haven't seen a zillion times before, and most importantly in a sense we haven't yet seen in the Nolanverse.